T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT AL L E N WOL F S ON,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 4114 v. ( D . o f U t ah) GI NO CA RLU CCI , UN I TED STATES OF AM E RI CA , S AL T L AKE C O U N T Y , M I C H A E L H I R A T A , and S T AT E OF UT AH,

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 6 - CV- 9 6 0 - P GC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. ** A l l en W olfs on app eal s the d i stri ctcou rt ’s su a sp o n te d ism iss a l o f h is cl ai m s br oughtunder42 U . S. C . § 1985. W ol fs on al l eges t he U ni t ed St at es , t he St at e of U t ah, U . S. A t t or neyM i ke H i r at a, and Sal tL ake Count yal l cons pi r ed w ith G ino C arluc ci t o co v er u p C arluc ci’s th ef t of eq u ipm en t from W o lfso n ’sW e re c o g n ize , h o w e v e r, th a t th e lan g u a g e o f § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(ii) 1 r egar di ng t he fa i l ur e t o s t at e a l egal cl ai m t r acks w i th Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) s uch thatr evi ew of di s m i s s al s undert hos e tw o pr ovi s i ons s houl d be the s ame. Mi t chellv. Farcass , 112 F. 3d 1483, 1490 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . H ence , ourr evi ew for d is m is s a l b a s e d o n § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( ii) is “ fo r p la u s ib ility in th e c o m p la in t.” Al v ar ado v . KO B- TV, __ F . 3 d

__ N o . 0 6 -20 0 1 , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 0 1 9 7 5 2 , * 3 (10 th C ir . J ul y13, 2007) ( ci t i ng B e ll A tla n tic C o rp . v. Tw o m b ly , 127 S. C t . 1955, 1970 (20 0 7 )). Sect i on 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) w as 1915( d) att he t i m e of the McK i nney 2 deci s i on di s cus s ed her e. T he ol d 1915( d) beca m e partof 1915( e) i n 1996. -2- p ro p e rt yin re tu rn fo r C a rl u c c i te s tif y in g a g a in s t W o lfs o n a n d h is s o n in c o u rt . W ol fs on cont ends t he di ffe r entl evel s of governm entw or ked t ogethert o dr op char ges agai ns tC ar l ucci i n r etur n forhi s t es t i m ony . W e A FFIRM the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s su a sp o n te d ism iss a l. W ol fs on pr ocee ded in fo rm a p a u p e ris bel ow and i s s ubj ectt o the s tr i ctur es o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 . T h e leg a l sta n d a rd fo r d ism iss a l u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i) d iffe rs fro m that o f a d ism issal u n d er F ed . R . C iv. P . 1 2 (b)(6 ). Nei tz ke v . 1 Wi l l i a ms , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 (1 9 8 9 ); see also McK i nney v . O klahom a, D ep’ tof Hum an Ser vi ces , 92 5 F . 2d 36 3, 36 5 (10th C i r. 19 91 ). S ect i on 19 15 (e) (2) (B )( i ) r equ i res a cour tt o di s m i s s an in fo rm a p a up e ris act i on i f i ti s “fr i vol ous orm al i ci ous . ” U n d er this pro v isi o n , d istri ct co u rtjud g es m ay“p ierce th e v eil o f th e c o m p lai n t’ s fa c tu a l alle g a tio n s a n d d ism iss th o se c laim s w h o se fa c tu a l co n ten tio n s a re c lea rly b a se les s. . . [ i.e.] c laim s d e sc rib in g fa n tas tic o r d e lu sio n a l sc e n a rio s, c laim s w ith w h ic h fe d e ra l d is tr ic t ju d g e s a re a ll to o fa m ilia r.” Nei tz ke , 4 9 0 U .S . a t 3 2 7

– 2 8 . 2-3-

S e c tio n 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(iii) als o a llo w s fo r d ism iss a l o f su its a g a in st d e fe n d a n ts w ho are i m m un e t o such sui t s. T h e d istric t co u rt s ua s pont e di s m i s s ed W ol fs on’ s cl ai m s on s ever al gr ounds . Fi r s t , i tcorr ect l yfound pr os ecut or i al i m m uni tyforH i r at a and s over ei gn i m m uni t yfort he St at e of U t ah. Second, i tnot ed thatthe di s m i s s al of cr i m i nal char ges agai ns tC ar l ucci di d notamount t o a cl ai m under§ 1985. T hi r d, i tfound t hatW ol fs on had fa i l ed t o pl ead a nyfac t s thatw oul d gi ve the courtj ur i s di ct i on o v e rC a r l u c c i u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 2 o ra n y o th e rj u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a tu t e . F i n a l l y, w i t h i t s ci t at i on t o McK i nney , t he di s tr i ctcour tfound thatW ol fs on’ s al l egat i ons w ere s uffi ci entl yfanc i ful that theyw arr anted di sm i ssal as fr i vo l ou s or m al i ci ou s. W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s anal y s i s and A FFIRM the di s m i s s al of W ol fs on’ s cl ai m s . W e denyhi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a p auperis o n a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge